ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026
Sex-independent visual evoked potential complexity.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Visual evoked potentials (VEPs) provide a non-invasive measure of visual pathway function, traditional analyses focusing on peak latency and amplitude may overlook the dynamic complexity of cortical processing. This study examined whether VEP signal complexity differs between sexes using a non-linear fractal approach based on the correlation dimension (D₂). Methods: Eighty-eight healthy adults (39 females, 49 males; mean age 37 years) underwent pattern-reversal VEP testing for each eye using two checkerboard field sizes (0.808° and 0.258°), preferentially engaging magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. The complexity of averaged VEPs was quantified using the Grassberger-Procaccia algorithm with optimised embedding parameters. Sex and eye effects were analysed separately for each stimulus condition. Results: No significant main effects or interactions of sex or eye were observed for either checkerboard size. Estimated D₂ values ranged from 3.3 to 3.6 across conditions. Although females showed numerically higher P100 amplitudes, particularly for small-checkerboard stimulation, and a subtle tendency toward longer response latencies for left-eye stimulation, these differences were not reflected in D₂. Conclusions: The fractal dimensionality of early visual cortical responses is stable across sex, eye, and stimulus parameters. Significance: Correlation dimension (D₂) analysis can be applied to averaged visual evoked potential (VEP) data from healthy adults without stratifying participants by sex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.